Stan Lee has apparently fallen on hard times?

[Brazoo]

Anyone else see the story circulating that Lee's personal manager and one of his ex-nurses allegedly stole his blood to fuse it with ink so they could stamp and certify collectibles with Lee's DNA?

It's basically a comic book horror story in itself.

[Earth 2 Chris]

At this point, I think this may fall under senior abuse. When he dies, will they stuff him and roll him out at conventions?

Despicable.

Chris

[cockyhoskins]

Yeah, that was painful to watch. I don't know what ****es me off more... watching the vultures roll out a legend to be an autograph factory, or the dude who has post-it notes on his shields saying "sign here" so he can sell them, or the idiots who buy these because they're Stan Lee's last signatures (you know that's how he's going to market them).

Every autograph I have on my walls was personally received... never paid for (except one, I never got Michael Hutchence, so I bought his). The autograph experience is supposed to be about meeting a legend and getting proof, not jumping on eBay to buy it. I almost paid $700 for a Scott Weiland autograph right after he died (I already have one) because he signed it "F U (not abbreviated) if you sell this on ebay, Scott Weiland". It felt appropriate at the time!

I think the future of autographs will be selfies! I've been saying it for a couple years... take a selfie with the person! They can't sell it, and they have proof they met their legend.

[Brazoo]

Stan's most recent appearance, this is kind of hard to look at:

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/04...ley-comic-con/

This is really painful to see.

[TRDouble]

Stan's most recent appearance, this is kind of hard to look at:

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/04...ley-comic-con/

Ah, reminds me of when I met Gordie Howe at a signing a few years (or so) ago. I was one of the early people in line and he was great. He couldn't talk much (a move of the hand and a whisper of what I think was, "thanks,") and it was get your item signed, say thanks (and what a fan you were), and move on. I heard they kept him out there too long and it didn't end well.

We all want to see & meet the greats, but sometimes the people "handling" them have to know when to say When. Even if these legends do want to still want to be out there among us fans (Gordie looked like he enjoyed seeing the turnout; Stan looks empty), do a small private signing, or luncheon. I would think it would make it easier on these guys, and if done right, the money grubbers will make a killing off of it too.

[hedrap]

I knew he would crash hard after his wife passed, but I didn't expect the vultures. How Arad or Fiege can live with themselves is beyond me. I hope they're covertly trying to help.

[johnnystorm]

Wow, it looks very much like he has had a stroke or something. He doesn't even look at the fans. And those photos...like he's not even aware of what's going on, not even an attempt at a smile.
This reminds me so much of the ordeal that Ted William's son put him through in his final years. All he is now is a cash cow the handlers need to milk for as much as they can in the time left.
Maybe in the long run, Jack Kirby won the game. He never had to live through this indignity.

[palitoy]

Stan's most recent appearance, this is kind of hard to look at:

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/04/08/concern-stan-lee-silicon-valley-comic-con/

[Brazoo]

Rechecking facts about Lee's education (it's been a long time since I looked at this stuff). According to Wiki, Lee graduated high-school early (this article says 16 1/2) and then worked in a federally subsidized work program called Federal Theatre Project, which he couldn't have been at long, because it says he stared his job as an assistant at early Marvel in 1939 - so I think he was only 17.

Crazy times. Crazy life.

[Brazoo]

I'm reluctant to get involved in the old Lee vs. Kirby debate, but I do think a key point is being missed here.

I think people get caught up in the creator debate, because that was the basis of the royalties, lawsuits (etc.) and forget the fact that Lee never credited Kirby (or Ditko) for writing. That's one of the simple things that took a toll on Kirby's (and Ditko's) relationship with him, and it actually affected Kirby's career.

I don't think Lee is a villain. I don't think he wanted to hurt Kirby or his career. I think his self-worth was too vested in his idea of selling himself as an author. Everyone has a weakness.

Lee is incredibly vocal about his early dreams of being an author - he fell into comics, fell into becoming an editor - what he really wanted was to become an author. When he dreamed of how the world saw him THAT is what he wanted, and he did everything to project that.

Comic editors in other companies often did what Lee did. They collaborated on story, they often changed dialog - and usually did not credit themselves as a writer. Lee did. I'm not saying he was wrong to do that, but I do think it was wrong for him to keep that credit to himself and then invent and promote the "Marvel Method" for decades as a way of further selling the idea that he's THE (as in the REAL) writer.

When Kirby and Ditko complained Lee didn't share a writing credit with them he didn't add their name next to "written by", he changed the way he wrote the credits. The impression that he was the writer was already sold to the public. "Stan Lee presents" and his personalized brand of editorial remained, so no matter what it always seemed like his brain was where all the ideas came from.

I know it worked that way, because for a long time that's what I thought too. And I still talk to people who think that all the time.

I think that gave Kirby a bit of a reputation of not being a writer and that seems like something he was self-conscious about and constantly fighting in his career. By all accounts he had an impressive self-taught interest in space, science, mythology and history - all the ingredients that helped form his stories, but he didn't have the same education as Lee, (as I recall, I think he left school at 15 or something) which I think also put him at odds with other comic editors. For example, it took a long time to negotiate a deal with DC before he left Marvel to work with them, I think mainly because he wanted writing and editorial freedom, and they never seemed to fully trust him or give him the creative room to do what he wanted - which is one of the reasons he probably left them. (Meanwhile, flash forward to now and they're basically banking half their billion dollar movie franchises on his concepts --- and he was only there about 3 years. Imagine the IPs they'd have to play with if they made him a bit happier and he stayed a little longer?)

[LonnieFisher]

And it just keeps getting worse...

https://io9.gizmodo.com/report-stan-lees-stolen-blood-stolen-was-used-to-sign-1825022655

[Madcap70]

Well like the old saying says "It takes two"

Funny thing why do people ALWAYS have to pick sides with EVERYTHING "I'm a Marvel Fan" "I'm a DC Fan" funny I'm both
And If I remember right Steve Ditko was a recluse and didn't want any attention for Spider-Man but Stan did that for him..

And on the Captain America lawsuit that was the Simon/Kirby family's that wanted some money from Marvel that's all...And they didn't start the lawsuit until the Cap movies were big hits and making alot of money...Greed Greed Greed I don't think they were doing that for Joe & Jack...

[Earth 2 Chris]

^I think Simon sued Marvel for Cap, and Kirby sided with them against his former partner, if I recall correctly.

These are all great points, and I appreciate the peaceful discussion folks. My take is Stan is not a villain, he's a human. And so is Jack. They both did wrong by other people, and each other in some respects. The same could be said for all of us at one point or another.

Stan never denied his artists credit. Maybe the extent of their credit was debated back and forth over the course of different interviews over the years, but he never tried to erase the contributions wholly as Bob Kane did. I think the Kane-bashing may be going too far nowadays too (Kane DID draw SOME of the early Batman work folks. It wasn't all ghosts), but I have a much easier time painting him as a "villain" than Stan. Kane weaved an intricate web of lies to cover his story of solely creating Batman. Lee at his worst marginalizes when the artist's contributions began, and what he considers "co-creation". He does acknowledge that they contributed SOMETHING in the mix of creating these characters.

Marvel the publishing entity screwed Jack Kirby over, no question to me. Whether he asked for it or not, they should have compensated him besides a nice pay rate for the time. I'm glad to see the Kirby estate finally getting compensated for his co-creations. It's all Kirby ever really wanted. I just wish he'd seen it in his lifetime.

[number 6]

There is some of this argument that suffers because we tend to want to apply what we know or what we assume to know NOW to how people should have behaved then. For instance, you NOW know this so Stan should have done X then and because he didn't, he's worthy of contempt. How do we know Stan knew that then? Did he have a crystal ball? You have to remember these were human beings, raised in the Depression. Their Worldview was completely different than ours. They rationalized and acted differently than what we consider to be reasonable in this day and age. Their work ethic was different and these were "funny books". And some of this is "if party A is good and was wronged, then party B was a complete tool", rather than all parties were rational human beings who might have been acting as best they could according to what they thought was reasonable.

I have seen interviews with Stan where he said if Jack would have just once pipped up, things could have been different. And I have read that Kirby was working in good faith and when he felt someone didn't come through for him, he could get angry and hold resentments. Heck, I know that feeling entirely. If you aren't your own advocate, people will forget very quickly because they have their own thing going on. Jack wasn't about to rock the boat by pipping up, but he was entirely disappointed that people didn't instinctively see things his way. This is a pretty basic workplace scenario really, although on a grander stage. And like all things, it's probably not a wild and interesting story unless you slap a black hat on one guy and a white hat on the other.

THIS ^

Though I have read some comic history - Evanier’s Kirby: King of Comics, Lee’s fluff autobiography, Back Issue, etc. - and while I wouldn’t claim to be an expert or well-versed on the Kirby/Lee feud, this balanced take matches my impression on the situation.

Both men had their flaws, both probably contributed to the problem in their own way. I don’t vilify one and pom-pom for the other.

Part of the problem is as you say: we have the benefit of hindsight now. Clearly, with multiple comic-inspired movies with 200-300 million dollar budgets and toy departments crammed with liscensed merchandise, we can clearly see that the work-for-hire stuff was unfair to creators. But back in the day that was business as usual. Not saying that makes it ok, but is it fair to demand either man or both should have behaved differently based on today’s sensibilities?

And when we start blaming them based on what we know to be “right” today, we’re engaging in a huge game of “what if”. If Stan had taken it upon himself to put his foot down for creator rights would that really have changed things? Or would Uncle Martin just have stuck Stan in a broom closet somewhere? I’m sure Stan’s critics would have loved that, but would it really have made things better for creators?

If Jack had actually spoke up for himself or for other creator’s rights (I thought the lawsuit involved Joe Simon, but maybe I’m misremembering) would it actually have changed things? Or would he have just gotten fired as he feared? And would getting fired from comics really be terrible? Yeah, would’ve sucked for comics, but would it perhaps have been the impetus to find a better career- maybe commercial art? - where he would have found the security he was seeking? How many of us have been let go from a job and think it’s the end of the world...only to end up at a better job?

We can guess and make assumptions based on our prejudices we’ll never actually how things could have played out if done differently.

I think another big part is that you’re seeing the “success has many fathers; falure is an orphan” in play. Reminds me of the He-Man episode of Toys That Made Us. You had 3-4 guys all absolutely adimate that they were the sole creative impetus behind the line, when it’s clear that it was a collaborative effort and all played a part.

[palitoy]

I have seen interviews with Stan where he said if Jack would have just once pipped up, things could have been different. And I have read that Kirby was working in good faith and when he felt someone didn't come through for him, he could get angry and hold resentments. Heck, I know that feeling entirely. If you aren't your own advocate, people will forget very quickly because they have their own thing going on. Jack wasn't about to rock the boat by pipping up, but he was entirely disappointed that people didn't instinctively see things his way. This is a pretty basic workplace scenario really, although on a grander stage.

Yeah, he did get very resentful later in life, to the point of starting to claim "He did it all". I've experienced this in my professional life (and a super fun lawsuit) and witnessed a man I worked with say the same (he wasn't being truthful) about a collaberation that i witnessed. He felt disrepected and used, so he was lashing out. I think he was convinced he was justified. I actually feel a lot of empathy for the man, he deserved better.

While Jack wasn't great at sticking up for himself, I also think Lee had/has this terrible fear of conflict. That can actually cause you more problems than having the conflict. Whenever he was asked about things, he feigns this sort of ignorance that I honestly believe is sincere. He just shut down.

it's probably not a wild and interesting story unless you slap a black hat on one guy and a white hat on the other.

Absolutely, which is kind of ironic considering Lee/Kirby created villains with interesting motives and empathy.

I think a lot of it stems from the Segiel/Shuster story or the fact that Bob Kane is easy to dislike but not every story fits in that mold.


Just an annecdote about both men: I used to be friendly with the man who ran the Toronto Comic conventions. In 1990 we had lunch and he was getting A list guests, so I asked about the possibility of Kirby or Lee. I paraphrase but the response was "Lee is too much money" and "Kirby isn't about money, it's all about being recognized, you have to give him an award, then he'll consider it". He then told me that any "bowling trophy" he gave him seemed too insincere, so it didn't get explored.